Dominique Pfister wrote:
...
2) I think that having a separate connector for CMIS in addition to WebDAV
should be avoided. We essentially would mint different HTTP URLs for the
same thing. So maybe not now, but at a later point of time it would be good
if we could merge the new functionality int
> Also, I don't think we should implement any of the HTTP
> extensions in the AtomPub binding -- they are neither
> necessary nor desirable. We should show the TC how to
> implement it right, not just implement whatever they suggest.
very good point!
this also puts us into a good position to file
On Dec 2, 2008, at 5:15 AM, Dominique Pfister wrote:
That's a good point. It makes no sense to have both bindings - REST
and SOAP - translate their calls into JCR API, but rather have a
generic CMIS to JCR adapter that can be plugged into either of the two
binding implementations.
Okay, but let
Hi Julian,
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Julian Reschke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dominique Pfister wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> After having had a first look at the CMIS specification, I decided to
>> start off with the jcr-cmis implementation. I therefore
Dominique Pfister wrote:
Hi,
After having had a first look at the CMIS specification, I decided to
start off with the jcr-cmis implementation. I therefore created a
jcr-cmis sandbox with the following initial structure:
jcr-cmis
-- + server
+ rest
+ ws
I intend to start working on
On 2 Dec 2008, at 20:04, Dominique Pfister wrote:
-- + rest
+ ws
Just as an observation, I think it's insane having two different
protocols for this standard. It sounds like two factions in the
standards group that could never agree.
--
Torgeir Veimo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
After having had a first look at the CMIS specification, I decided to
start off with the jcr-cmis implementation. I therefore created a
jcr-cmis sandbox with the following initial structure:
jcr-cmis
-- + server
+ rest
+ ws
I intend to start working on the server/rest subtree
Hi,
> As an informal rule I'd still expect external committers
> who choose to commit to our sandbox to be subscribed on dev@ and to
> follow at least the relevant parts of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OK, Jukka. I've been following dev@ for several months ;-) and I've
just subscribed on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
C
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 8:24 AM, David Nuescheler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If there are existing Apache committers from other projects who'd be
>> interested in working on this, then we could simplify things by
>> opening write access in the Jackrabbit sandbox to all Apache
>> committers.
David Nuescheler wrote:
...
absolutely. i think this would be particularly interesting given the fact that a
lot of the functionality is already defined in webdav.
i wonder if it is possibly to steer the tc into that direction.
...
Yes. Indeed, it would be interesting to know how much steering
hi julian,
thanks for your comments.
>> ...
>> Since functionally the CMIS specification is a subset of the
>> JCR specification it allows a very simple and straight-forward mapping to
>> a fully compliant JCR repository such as Jackrabbit.
>> ...
> Yes, the more challenging part is the mapping *
Hi Jukka,
>> Most of the organizations on the technical committee of CMIS
>> are already heavily involved at Apache either as contributors or as
>> sponsors and are also on the JCR expert group.
> If there are existing Apache committers from other projects who'd be
> interested in working on this,
David Nuescheler wrote:
...
Since functionally the CMIS specification is a subset of the
JCR specification it allows a very simple and straight-forward mapping to
a fully compliant JCR repository such as Jackrabbit.
...
Yes, the more challenging part is the mapping *from* a JCR repository
(how
Hi all,
2 words about me. working for Sourcesense, committer of Apache POI
implementing the Open XML format support, very close to the CM world,
in particular to JCR; I have been also working on Alfresco for a
couple of years.
I am very excited by this thread, since I am one of those hoping that
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 7:17 PM, David Nuescheler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Similar to the existing protocol layers (webdav etc) on top of
> JCR that are already part of Jackrabbit, I would like to propose
> that we initiate first tests with an implementation in a sandbox
> project.
Sounds
David Nuescheler schrieb:
Hi all,
I am currently working in a technical committee on OASIS defining a
document management interoperability specification called CMIS [1].
CMIS shoots for a protocol level interoperability between applications
and various repository vendors.
The specification is i
David,
thanks for this. From the peanut gallery (Troy McLure moment: hi
Jackrabbits, you might remember me for being an initial mentor of
Jackrabbit, and being dragged away since graduation, yet keeping a
place in my heart for the project) I have been both interested and
quite skeptical about CMIS
Hi all,
I am currently working in a technical committee on OASIS defining a
document management interoperability specification called CMIS [1].
CMIS shoots for a protocol level interoperability between applications
and various repository vendors.
The specification is in a very early stage and a l
18 matches
Mail list logo
